The Summit County government is touting this year’s general session as a victory for the Wasatch Back, but the celebration isn’t for successful legislation. Instead, county officials are praising the failure of specific bills, with hired lobbyists describing the session as an exercise in defens e. The state Legislature met in general session from January to March, filing, passing and rejecting a record number of bills for the second year in a row. In Summit County, the County Council, county staff and lobbyists from Foxley and Pignanelli met on a weekly basis to discuss proposed legislation, determine the county’s stance and plan talking points for those slated to testify in committee meetings. “We want to understand the Legislature and their goals and priorities, and we want them to understand us,” said Deputy County Manager Janna Young, who spearheads the county’s involvement in state politics. “In order to be effective, it also takes coalition building. We often work on building relationships even outside of legislators, with our county partners and other entities who share a lot of our common values and goals, as we can’t ever get anything done on our own.” Young and a handful of representatives from Foxley and Pignanelli, a government relations firm based in Salt Lake City, spoke to the County Council about the general session last week. They shared stories of the county’s success this year, as well as bills and issues that may be revisited in the interim session. “We’re honored to represent Summit County,” said Frank Pignanelli, who co-founded the firm in 1997. “This was an interesting session with a record number of bills. We had to play both the zone and person-to-person defense, mostly playing defense.” Pignanelli said the county’s history of conflict with state lawmakers didn’t appear to play into conversations and proposals as strongly this year as it has in the past. Young attributed the change to an intentional shift in how the county approaches the state Legislature, with local officials now prioritizing interpersonal relationships with representatives. “We could go and talk to lawmakers, but it’s critical to have the County Council members and your elected officials actually speak in committee,” Pignanelli added. “That resonantes.” Steve Styler, a partner with Foxley and Pignanelli, said one of the county’s wins this year were modifications to House Bill 323, which dealt with the disposal of solar panels. He said this is the second or third general session in a row to focus on incentivizing fossil fuels instead of renewable energy sources. H.B. 323 was of particular concern to Summit County because of the government’s emphasis on sustainability. The original version of the bill would have imposed a tax of $1 per each square foot of solar panel slated for disposal. “Imagine a 300-megawatt solar farm and what $1 per square foot of solar panel would actually add up to,” Styler said. Rather than implementing the proposed fee, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality is working on what Styler called a “reasonable budget” to govern how solar panels are replaced. “It’s not urgent because most of the largest commercial solar farms are only about five to 10 years old, with panels that are rated for 20 to 25 years, so we’ve got about five to 10 years to really figure out where we’re going to dispose of these panels,” Styler said. “It got watered down into a very simple bill, and all of the real issues were removed from the bill before it was passed.” Pignanelli also pointed to H.B. 184 as a bill that would have “caused some real problems in Summit County” despite its intent to help create starter homes for young families.  The bill would have changed how the administrative process works for new developments, essentially allowing any request that conforms with the county’s land use map to become a permitted allowance within 45 days as long as there is no outright denial from the local planning commission. “It would have really gutted our public process and the planning commissions and even the council’s role in some of the decision making, so we were happy to see that fail,” Young said. “We anticipate something like this coming again because starter homes are a big initiative of the governor’s as well.” Summit County also lobbied against H.B. 231, which would have repealed the restaurant tax and replaced it with another, “broader” tax designed to generate the same amount of revenue. Young called the bill’s failure a “great victory,” but she told the County Council she expects the bill to return next year. “In a lot of other places in the state, there was some data that the legislator sponsoring this had that said that locals are the ones eating in the restaurants, so the locals are paying this tax,” Young said. “In Summit County, as well as Washington County and others, it’s not the case. A lot of visitors are paying this tax.” Young said the county didn’t want to take a program that was meant to target tourists and apply it to residents, especially because the generated revenue currently goes toward a grant program often utilized by local nonprofits. She said the county is studying the restaurant tax in the interim session to build a case showcasing its value for the Wasatch Back. State lawmakers in May will start to meet on the third Wednesday of each month for the interim session, according to Pignanelli. He said the Legislature currently plans to study the cost of elections, water issues, annexations, incorporations, growth and tax increment financing before the next general session begins in January. The post Summit County’s ‘defense’ leads to a successful general session for the Wasatch Back, say officials appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less